LONG v. CITY OF MARIANNA FLORIDA
Filing
53
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "This action was resolved on a motion for summary judgment. It is ordered that the plaintiff Nadine Long recover nothing. The claims against the defendant City of Marianna, Florida, are dismissed on the merits." The clerk must close the file. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 8/17/2015. (jcw)
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
NADINE LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 5:14cv326-RH/GRJ
CITY OF MARIANNA, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an employment-discrimination case. The plaintiff asserts she was not
hired for a position because of her race. But the record establishes, without
genuine dispute, that the defendant chose another applicant because that applicant
was better qualified and willing to work for the salary the defendant wished to pay.
This order grants summary judgment for the defendant.
I
On the defendant’s summary-judgment motion, disputes in the evidence
must be resolved, and all reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn,
in the plaintiff’s favor. This order sets out the facts that way.
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Page 2 of 7
The plaintiff Nadine Long currently serves as Administrative Assistant to
the Public Works Director of the defendant City of Marianna, Florida. Ms. Long
has held this position since 2003. Ms. Long is African American.
In December 2013, the City announced an opening for the position of
Accounts Payable/Payroll Clerk. The City first emailed the announcement to its
department heads and their assistants. Ms. Long received a copy of the
announcement on December 24, 2013. The pay grade of the position was lower
than Ms. Long’s pay grade at that time, so Ms. Long did not apply for the position.
No City employees applied for the position, so the position was advertised to
the public. The City received more than 25 applications and scheduled interviews
in early February. Around this time, the City determined that it should revise the
position description and raise the pay grade. The City Commission approved this
on February 4, 2014, but the City did not re-advertise the position.
Ms. Long learned that the City had revised the position and raised the pay
grade. She applied for the position on February 6, 2014. Within a day she
received notice that she would be interviewed. Her interview was scheduled for
the following week.
The revised job description required graduation from high school or a GED,
three years of full-time experience in payroll and data processing, typing, 10-key
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Page 3 of 7
proficiency, and computer literacy. The description said an associate’s degree in
accounting or bookkeeping was preferred.
A three-person panel conducted interviews. All three interviewers were
white. The interviewers told Ms. Long that the City was planning to pay a salary
at the bottom of the range. Ms. Long says she told the interviewers that she wished
to be paid $35,000 (an amount within but not at the bottom of the range) but that
she would be willing to negotiate. (According to the interviewers, Ms. Long said
clearly that she would accept nothing less than $35,000, but Ms. Long’s version
must be accepted for summary-judgment purposes.)
The interviewers unanimously recommended that the City hire Linda
Albritton, who is white. The city manager approved the recommendation. Ms.
Albritton accepted the job.
II
When, as here, an employee relies on circumstantial evidence in support of a
discrimination claim, the employee may proceed under the familiar burden-shifting
framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973),
and later cases. Under that framework, an employee first must present a prima
facie case. The employer then must proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for its decision. The employee then must show that the proffered reason was not
the real reason for the decision and that instead a reason was discrimination.
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Page 4 of 7
Alternatively, the employee may present other evidence from which a reasonable
factfinder could infer prohibited discrimination or retaliation. See, e.g., Smith v.
Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011).
The standards that govern the claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act are
the same as those that govern the federal claims.
III
A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination in hiring by
showing that: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) the plaintiff
applied and was qualified for a position; (3) the plaintiff was not hired for the
position; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by a person outside of
the protected class. See Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1267 (11th Cir.
1999).
Ms. Long is African-American. She applied for the Accounts
Payable/Payroll Clerk position. She was not hired for the position. The successful
applicant is white. The City asserts that Ms. Long was not qualified for the
position, but I assume, without deciding, that Ms. Long was qualified. On that
assumption, Ms. Long has established a prima facie case.
But the City has proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not
selecting Ms. Long: Ms. Albritton was better qualified and willing to accept a
salary at the bottom of the range. Ms. Albritton had almost 20 years of experience
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Page 5 of 7
in payroll and accounts payable. Ms. Long had less experience in payroll and
accounts payable and wished to be paid a higher salary. Unlike Ms. Albritton, Ms.
Long had never held a position with full-time responsibilities in payroll or
accounts payable.
Ms. Long has not shown that the City’s proffered reason was not the real
reason for the decision and that instead a reason was discrimination. Ms. Long
says the City purposefully did not internally advertise the revised position and that
this was discrimination against her. But Ms. Long was still able to interview for
the position. The way the City chose to advertise the position affected all
applicants equally, regardless of race. And the successful applicant, Ms. Albritton,
interviewed for the position by telephone. The interviewers and city manager all
testified, without contradiction, that they had no knowledge of Ms. Albritton’s race
until after she was selected for and accepted the position.
Ms. Long brings up incidents of alleged racial discrimination from several
years prior to the hiring decision at issue in this case. She says, for example, that
she filed a grievance in 2008 claiming that she was not interviewed for a position
based on her race and that the city manager (the same city manager involved here)
became angry with her. Ms. Long also says that in 2012, the city manager
counseled Ms. Long for verbally harassing a police officer after Ms. Long accused
the officer of racial profiling. Ms. Long says she received a written reprimand
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Page 6 of 7
after filing this lawsuit. But the facts underlying these events—as distinguished
from Ms. Long’s unsupported conclusions—do not show racial discrimination.
And the consequences Ms. Long says she suffered did not constitute “a serious and
material change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Davis v.
Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis in
original). “[C]riticisms of an employee’s job performance—written or oral—that
do not lead to tangible job consequences will rarely form a permissible predicate
for a Title VII suit.” Id. at 1241.
Ms. Long does not frame her allegations as a hostile-environment claim.
But it would not matter if she did assert a hostile-environment claim, because the
alleged mistreatment was not “severe or pervasive,” as required for a hostileenvironment claim. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); see
also Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 808-09 (11th Cir.
2010).
The City is entitled to summary judgment.
IV
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The City’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 41, is GRANTED.
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Page 7 of 7
2.
The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This action was resolved on a
motion for summary judgment. It is ordered that the plaintiff Nadine Long recover
nothing. The claims against the defendant City of Marianna, Florida, are dismissed
on the merits.”
3.
The clerk must close the file.
SO ORDERED on August 17, 2015.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case No. 5:14cv326-RH/CAS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?